The Crusades are one of the most infamous episodes in all of medieval history. More than 700 years later, they are still extremely controversial. This may be why the BBC decided to examine them in 2012. At that time, the British and Americans (plus many others) were still fighting in Afghanistan, and would soon be returning their troops to Iraq. Even after the Allies’ departure from Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism remains a hot topic, and it will likely continue to be so. Islam holds many grudges against the West, many of which go back to this turbulent period. Thus, I will review the BBC’s coverage here, and see how it compares to the earlier coverage of the History Channel in 2005.
Comments on the style of this film, and on presenter Thomas Asbridge
This documentary is presented by Professor Thomas Asbridge, an expert on the Crusades. This film visits the places where these things happened, and also makes use of period paintings as well. As is common with the BBC, there are few (if any) re-enactments in this film. If you’re after re-enactments, you’d be better off going to “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross,” the aforementioned documentary by the History Channel. The History Channel clearly had a much higher budget, and was able to do some incredible re-enactments. Nonetheless, I personally like the style of the BBC as well. Using period images has its advantages, since even the best re-enactments are only a guess at what things may have looked like. And more to the point, Thomas Asbridge is a great presenter here. He was in his forties when he did this program, but appears to be even younger. He has the ability to bring these things to life.
Dr. Thomas Asbridge
The BBC’s focus is on the Crusader side of the wars (which was a surprise for me)
The BBC’s focus is on the Crusader side of the wars. This was a bit of a surprise to me. I would have expected some coverage of the Muslim side, to show how the Crusades affected the Middle East. Indeed, the History Channel covered both sides in its own documentary on this subject. But an exclusive focus on the Christian side also has its advantages. For example, Dr. Asbridge is very interested in the Crusaders’ mindset, and showing why they did what they did. At times, he seems almost sympathetic to them; but nonetheless covers the many atrocities that the Crusaders committed, which paint them in a fairly negative light. Even believing Christians (including many Catholics) have a hard time understanding these Crusaders. And as the History Channel noted in their version, the Muslim world remembers these Crusades like they were yesterday. Today, they see all Western wars in the Middle East through this problematic prism. Many a Muslim person has blown himself up in a marketplace, to take revenge on the West for episodes like this. In some ways, few in the Muslim world ever really left the Middle Ages, since most of them seem still to be in the medieval mindset (if I may be so bold).
Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont
For example, they talk much about the Crusader mindset
But again, the BBC’s focus is on the Crusader side, and why they were induced to invade the Holy Land at this time. Some of this undoubtedly came from a sense of religious duty, as Dr. Asbridge notes here. But some of it also came from more traditional motives – such as money, land, and loot. Many Crusaders were handsomely rewarded for their efforts on behalf of the church, as Dr. Asbridge also notes. One doesn’t have to choose between selfless and self-serving motives here. All of them produced the Crusades, and carried Europeans thousands of miles, as far as the gates of Jerusalem. Even fellow Christians in the Byzantine Empire were often targeted, because of their being Orthodox Christians rather than fellow Roman Catholics. They were caught in the crossfire between the Catholics to the West, and (to them) the equally hostile Muslims to the East.
Richard the Lionheart, one of the most famous of the Crusaders
Comments on what this film covers, and what it does not cover
Like its earlier counterpart from the History Channel, this film focuses on the first three Crusades. This may be surprising, given that there were nine Crusades in all. But in fairness, the first three Crusades were probably the most important ones. These were the Crusades that had the greatest effect on Christian and Muslim history. They certainly make for dramatic stories, as anyone watching this will see. People will remember the starvation and disease as much as they remember the bloodshed and the atrocities. The BBC depicts two of the titans of the era – which were Richard the Lionheart on the Crusader side, and Saladin on the Muslim side. They also depict other figures, as they talk about later battles in places like Egypt.
Statue of Saladin in Damascus, one of the most celebrated Muslim generals of the Crusades
This film connects its topic with the present, sometimes in problematic ways …
Dr. Asbridge disagrees with the idea that the Crusades sparked a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Rather, he seems to lay the blame for the more modern wars at the feet of George W. Bush. He even ends with a clip from George W. Bush, calling the War on Terror a “crusade.” But it would seem that Thomas Asbridge may be willfully misunderstanding what Mr. Bush said, and even taking it out of context. There are other meanings of the word “crusade” besides the one that Mr. Asbridge wrongfully attributes here to then-President Bush, like the one used by General Eisenhower to describe the World War II invasion of Europe as a “crusade.” (Source: June 6, 1944 order of the day) Eisenhower even published a 1948 book entitled “Crusade in Europe,” about the war against Nazi Germany. It thus seems strange that a scholar of the “Crusades” would be unaware of these other meanings of the word, or (even worse) would willfully ignore them to serve his own cause. The presentation is marred somewhat by this journalistic soapboxing in its conclusion, which may be more worthy of a propaganda film.
Battle of Inab, 1149
Nonetheless, this film has good storytelling for nearly all of the rest of the film …
Nonetheless, the film has good storytelling for nearly all of the rest of the film. It would be hard to find a more thunderous hook than the respective opening segments of its three different episodes. They make a compelling argument that the Crusades are still relevant today – even if some of Dr. Asbridge’s “connections” are a little dubious, to say the least. As mentioned earlier, the BBC is quite good at putting you in the Crusaders’ mindset, and bringing this history to life. Their mindset is so alien to us that helping one to understand it is quite a feat. It’s rare that anyone (particularly on the left) tries to depict the Crusaders sympathetically, and it makes this film much more interesting. Rather than depicting them as one-dimensional “monsters,” they show them as flesh-and-blood human beings, who were willing to risk their lives for a cause – however unworthy that cause ultimately proved itself to be. Obviously, Europe wasted a lot of blood, toil, and treasure on this cause, and created bitter wounds that still fester to this day. But it would be a mistake to dismiss all of these Crusaders’ motives as a result. There’s more to this story than meets the eye, and this documentary helps you to see some of the rest. They show that, like most other things in history, this topic is complicated, and often defies simplistic explanations.
Later painting of Richard the Lionheart on his way to Jerusalem
… and is much recommended for medieval history buffs
Thus, this film is much recommended for medieval history buffs, and for anyone who wants to understand the current situation with Islam. It helps to shed light on a number of things, and helps to dramatize one of the most controversial episodes in medieval history in the process.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Part of a series about
European history
This list covers Europe through the Renaissance. For Europe since the Renaissance, click here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment